Page images
PDF
EPUB

prefent inclined to maintain, the neceffity of fubfcription to particular articles of faith in the established church, and of Teft Acts, to exclude Diffenters from places of civil truft. For there feems no reafon to expect, that fubfcriptions will be more efficacious to prevent the rife and incurfions of error, and guard the boundaries of truth, or to preferve the common people from being diftracted by a variety of opinions,' within the pale of the church, than without it; and there appears to be a manifeft injuftice, in excluding peaceable and useful members of fociety from places of truft in the government which they contribute to fupport, on account of opinions or practices which are not inimical to the state.

ART. IV. Military Memoirs of Great Britain: or, A History of the
War 17551763, with elegant Copper plates.
Copper plates. By David
Ramfay. 8vo. Edinburgh, printed for the Author. 1779.

Th

HIS volume contains an account of the principal events that occurred during the courfe of the laft war, collected, as the Author informs us, from the Gazettes, published by both nations-moft of the periodical publications-Smollet's Hiftory of England-Entick's Hiftory of the late War

-Molyneux's Conjunct Expeditions-Lloyd's Hiftory of the German War 1756 and 1757-Orme's Military Tranfactions of the British Nations in Indoftan-Annual Regifter, &c. &c.' The work will ferve to give a general idea of the tranfactions of that bufy period, in a manner that may prove fatisfactory to those who do not defire to investigate matters with a fcrupulous degree of attention; but it will not, we imagine, be equally acceptable to those who wish to penetrate the fecrets of the cabinet, or to fee the characters of the principal actors in these events, pourtrayed in lively and difcriminating colours. In the first department, we meet with little more than a fuccinct recital of the oftenfible motives for action, that have been made public by the feveral actors themselves, or their partizans; and in the laft, a few touches of general praife or difapprobation, which are not fo appropriated as to conftitute a particular likeness. The narrative is in general concife, and the ftyle unembarraffed, though not entirely free from provincial idiomatic phrases. But in fome cafes, the Author affumes a fort of enigmatic myfterioufnefs, which muft be confidered as a very material blemish in a work chiefly calculated for the ufe of thofe only who want to be informed, not puzzled.

As a fpecimen of the work, we felect the following account of the ftate of parties in the British court, in the year 1757.

As

As the politics of this period were complicated and myfterious, it will be neceffary, in order to form an idea of them, to delineate the characters of the different parties who laid claim to the direction of ftate affairs. They confifted of three different factions. The firft, highly refpectable as to rank and fortune, poffeffed of a confiderable fhare of parliamentary intereft, and the greatest fway with the monied people, was composed of those who had grown into place and power under the old ministry.. Their adulation, and courtly complaifance, had likewife rendered them greatly respected by the king; but in fome very material points their weaknefs was confpicuous; they were deficient in popularity, and their political abilities were but indifferent.-. The fecond faction, though fuperior in point of abilities, was poffeffed of lefs parliamentary intereft, and much more unpopular than the firft. They derived their power from their influence at one court*, by means of a then powerful connection; but which only tended to make them lefs respected with the other court, and even added to their unpopularity.-The third party had little influence in parliament, and lefs at court; but they poffeffed, in the highest degree, the confidence and fupport of the people. The fhining abilities of their leader, and his fteady adherence to an upright, difinterefted conduct, claimed veneration, even from his opponents.-These factions differed extremely in the general fcheme of politics. The two first agreed in opinion, that the increafing power of France was much to be dreaded; that it was abfolutely neceffary to maintain a balance of power; and that this was to be done chiefly, by keeping up a close connection with the powers of the continent, by efpoufing their quarrels, and even affifting them with troops if required. This furnished an argument for a ftanding army; and though they thought the navy-fhould by no means be neglected, yet it only ought to be employed in fubferviency to the continental fyftem. In their opinions of conftitutional liberty they were likewife fingular. Though they pretended to be ftaunch friends to the liberties of the people, yet, as government must be fupported, they looked upon it as juftifiable to secure a majority in Parliament, by creating many lucrative places and em

* Can any thing be more ridiculous than this air of mysterious fecrecy in a work evidently calculated for the young and ignorant only? How many, among fuch readers, will be puzzled to difcover who were the principal perfons meant to be included in each of thefe factions,-which would have been entirely cleared up by naming, as is ufual, the parties from their leaders--Newcastle, Bute, and Pitt. Or could any harm have arisen from mentioning, in plain terms, the court of the Prince of Wales, although an apology would perhaps have been unneceffary for applying the term COURT in this instance.

I 4

ployments

ployments at the difpofal of the crown; alleging, as a palliation of this mode of ruling, that the particular form of our government, and the general depravity of mankind, rendered any other less exceptionable method impracticable.

The third, and popular party, was actuated by principles of a different nature. They viewed, indeed, the increasing power of France, in the fame light with the two former, and acquiefced in the neceffity of fetting bounds to it; but they differed widely in the means to be used for that purpose. They were for making the military operations of Great Britain entirely fubfervient to our naval ftrength, as a more natural, fafer, and lefs expenfive plan of politics. Our fituation as an ifland, faid they, points out to us a conduct different from that of other nations. The fea is our natural element, and, to quit that, and involve ourselves in continental quarrels, is acting diametrically oppofite to our real interefts. The fuperiority of France lies entirely on the continent, and the attacking her on that fide would be evidently dangerous, and like (to ufe a strong, though vulgar expreffion) taking a bull by the horn. Our government, they faid, itood in no need of fupport from a ftanding army, which was ever dangerous to freedom; and that a well trained militia would prove our best protection against an invafion. From a higher notion of human nature, they judged it poffible to influence the minds of men by nobler motives than that of intereft. A minifter who governs uprightly, will never be opposed by the people.'

Our Author feems really, and honeftly, to think that Mr. Pitt was in very deed what he pretended to be, and to believe, in good earnest, that the British Parliament were actually fincere and unanimous in the character they all agreed to give of that great man after his death. If fo, Mr. R. is certainly ill qualified to develope the intrigues of the cabinet, The miniftry, before Mr. Pitt's adminiftration, were weak enough, in truth; but we never heard that they were fo exceedingly weak, as to avow the principles we have diftinguished by italics, although there is no doubt that both they, and Mr, Pitt, and every adminiftration fince, and before them, for half a century paft, have privately adopted thofe principles, and purfued that mode of conduct. Mr. Pitt had abilities fufficient to perfuade the nation, at large, that his opponents were actuated by motives which their own imbecility hardly enabled them to discover, and to make them believe, that he alone was poffeffed of fome excellent qualities, to which no other politician could, with juftice, lay claim. A well-informed hiftorian would do justice to his abilities-although he would often find occafion to condemn him in other refpects.-But the time is not, perhaps, yet come, for an impartial hiftory of that period.

Mr.

Mr. Ramfay is the avowed panegyrift of Mr. Pitt, and of every other person who had the good fortune to obtain popular fame during the war. Obferve in what manner he apologizes for Mr. Pitt's adopting continental measures after he affumed the reins of administration :

• The unpopular party, however, was not entirely excluded from a fhare in the adminiftration. Their influence in the Privy Council, and credit in the House of Commons, were ftill great, and fufficient to thwart every measure in which they did not partake. A coalition of parties therefore took place from neceffity.-- It was now propofed to gratify our King, with affifting our allies on the continent, in the manner most agrceable to our infular fituation, which is by making diversions with our fleets; and it was alfo agreed that we should aid them with fuch land force and money as our ftrength and finances would admit.'

Mr. Ramfay here thinks it neceffary to make an apology for his hero, that he did not judge neceffary for himself, as he afterwards claimed the fole honour of having conquered America in Germany.

This compendium would have been more useful, if the Author had taken care to infert, in the margin, the precife dates of the feveral occurrences that are mentioned in the text; for want of which the Reader is often at a lofs, in regard to the order of time and the fucceffion of events.

With respect to the copper-plates mentioned in the title-page, for elegant,' read execrable.

ART. V. A Discourse on the Theory of Gunnery. Delivered at the Anniversary Meeting of the Royal Society, Nov. 30th, 1778. By Sir John Pringle, Baronet. Published by their Order. 4to. I s. 6 d. L. Davis.

HIS most excellent difcourfe, the last we are to expect from its truly ingenious and learned Author, was delivered on presenting Sir Godfrey Copley's gold medal to Mr. Cha. Hutton of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, for his paper, entitled, "The Force of fired Gunpowder, and the initial Velocities of Cannon-Balls, determined from Experiments."

After premising a fhort account of fome of the principal military engines, used by the ancients before the discovery of gunpowder, and the invention of guns, the Prefident proceeds to give a concise account of the principal improvements which have been made, from time to time, in the theory and practice of gunnery. From which it appears that Nicholas Tartaglia, who lived about the beginning of the fixteenth century, was the first who maintained that no part of the path of a cannon

ball is a ftraight line. It does not, however, appear that Tartaglia made any attempts towards determining what the true path was. There is indeed, reafon to fuppofe that he had deviated fufficiently from the opinions of his contemporaries in denying that it was a ftraight line, obvious as it may appear at this day, and which is more to be wondered at, as every operation in nature, where projectile motion is concerned, muft have tended to convince them of it. But, as Sir John obferves, one would imagine, from numerous inftances, that men of science were fo far from making experiments themselves in those days, that they even shut their eyes against what chance would otherwife have presented to their fight.

To investigate the path which a projectile actually defcribes in a non-refitting medium was referved for Galileo, the inventor of the telescope, and the morning-ftar of the feventeenth century; which afterwards produced thofe glorious luminaries of fcience Hook, Huygens, Halley, and Newton. After the demonAtrations of Galileo, every one feems to have rested satisfied that the theory of gunnery was complete, and that nothing remained to be done for it but to reduce the theory to practice, until Newton, in 1687, published his Principia, wherein he demonftrates that the refiftance of the air is great enough to make the difference between the curve of projection of heavy bodies, and that of a parabola, very fenfible, and therefore too confiderable to be neglected. Soon after, namely, in 1690, M. Huygens demonftrated the fame thing. No notice, however, appears to have been taken of the demonftrations of thefe great men; nor yet of M. de Refons, a French officer of artillery, of high military rank, and great profeffional abilities; and, moreover, diftinguifhed by the number of fieges which he had ferved at; who, in the year 1716, reprefented to the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris, that," although it was agreed that theory joined to practice conftituted the perfection of every art, yet experience had taught him that theory was of very little fervice in the ufe of mortars. That although, in the work of M. Blondel*, the feveral parabolic lines are justly enough defcribed, according to the different degrees of the elevation of the piece, yet that practice had convinced him there was no theory in the effects of gunpowder: for that having endeavoured, with the greateft precifion, to point a mortar agreeably to thefe calculations, he had never been able to cftablifh any folid foundation upon them t." For we find no attempts toward improving this art before our countryman, Mr. Benjamin Robins, undertook it, about the year 1740, and made the experiments which are

L'Art de jetter les Bombes.

Mem. de l'Acad. R. des Sc. 1716.

related

« PreviousContinue »